Thursday, June 27, 2013

How does the
early medieval world differ from the classical world and the later Middle
Ages?

The early
medieval world differed in a number of ways from the ancient and later medieval
worlds. It was much more rural than the ancient world; cities virtually
disappeared in the early medieval world and the literate and urban culture
associated with ancient Rome
vanished. The early medieval world was an increasingly Christian world, unlike
the polytheistic world of antiquity, and its primary cultural center was the
monastery. Politically, the early medieval world was ruled by kings rather than
the emperors of antiquity and government itself was understood in more personal
terms. In part building upon the traditions of the early medieval world, the
later Middle Ages differed markedly from the early medieval world. City life
revived in the later Middle Ages and population and the economy grew
dramatically. The later Middle Ages experienced a commercial revolution that
revived international trade, which had virtually disappeared in the early
medieval world. The use of the written word throughout society expanded in the
later Middle Ages, new institutions of learning such as the university were
established, and the institutions of Church and state grew in power and organization.

What can the
early medieval world teach us about our modern world? Are there any
similarities?

It has often
been said that the past is a foreign country, and this is no more true than in
regard to the early medieval world, which had a worldview that is fundamentally
different than the worldview held today. Having said that, it must be noted
that the early medieval world has much to teach us today. People of the early
medieval period left an important legacy in terms of spirituality and religious
belief and practice that can provide comfort and important insights to many
people today. Early medieval rulers faced numerous challenges of governance and
had to create new institutions of government that could help guide modern
political leaders. The early medieval world was also one of surprising
diversity as peoples with a wide range of cultural practices, languages, and
traditions came to create a new social order out of the old Roman Empire, and
lessons in our own increasingly diverse world could be learned from our
medieval forebears.

What do you
think is a common misunderstanding about the early medieval world?The most common
misunderstanding of the early Middle Ages is that it was a “dark age.” Although
the early medieval world suffered decline in population, city life, and other
areas, it was a period of important cultural transformation and growth. During
this period, Europe underwent a process of
Christianization, and it was during the early Middle Ages that the Christian,
Roman, and Germanic traditions merged to lay the foundation for later European
civilization. Important institutions such as the papacy and monasticism took
shape during this period, and influential Christian and encyclopedic texts were
written. There was also a series of cultural revivals, most notably the
Carolingian Renaissance in the eighth to ninth centuries, that produced
important artistic works and literary texts. The Carolingian revival was most
important for the later development of European civilization. Many ancient
classical and Christian works were copied and preserved by Carolingian authors
who also wrote works of history, biography, theology, and law. Carolingian
artists lavishly illuminated these texts with dazzling images that borrowed
from earlier Christian and Roman works of art.

What are
some of the contributions the early medieval world gave to us?

The early
medieval world has left a number of important cultural artifacts. The Book of
Kells and the Lindisfarne Gospels are two beautifully illuminated manuscripts
from the early Middle Ages, and Carolingian artists produced a number of
equally beautiful illuminated manuscripts. The standard version of what became
the Catholic Bible took shape during the early medieval world. Carolingian
scholars preserved much of ancient classical and Christian literature; the
earliest surviving copies of nearly all ancient Latin manuscripts were made by
Carolingian scholars in the ninth century. The Code of Justinian, which shaped
European legal and judicial traditions, and the Rule of Saint Benedict, which
defined the practice of religious life into the modern era, were creations of
the early medieval world. Charlemagne’s chapel at Aachen, Theodoric’s mausoleum, and the Hagia
Sophia are among the great architectural monuments created during the early
Middle Ages.

In working
on the book, did you discover anything particularly surprising or interesting?

One thing I
discovered is the wide range of truly interesting personalities that lived
during this period. The people of the early medieval world are a fascinating
group of scholars, holy men and women, and political leaders. Many of them are
interesting because of their courage and integrity and others are
interesting—perhaps more interesting—because of their ruthlessness and quest
for power at any cost. I was also surprised by the incredible creativity of the
period during which society went through a profound transformation. New forms
of religious life developed, and kings and other political leaders devised new
ideas about political power and created new forms of government. Patterns of
daily life were transformed and new social institutions developed. And although
I have long known this, I am continually surprised by the literary and artistic
creativity of this period that includes the great achievements of the Church fathers,
Carolingian Renaissance scholars, and many other early medieval writers and
scholars.

Michael Frassetto, PhD, teaches medieval and world history at the University of Delaware, La Salle University, and Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. He has published numerous articles on medieval religious and social history. Frassetto is author of The Great Medieval Heretics: Five Centuries of Religious Dissent and editor of Christian Attitudes toward the Jews in the Middle Ages: A Casebook and Heresy and the Persecuting Society in the Middle Ages: Essays on the Work of R.I. Moore

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

The following is a piece from James A. Beckman, author of the forthcoming 2014 title Affirmative Action: Contemporary Perspectives and Associate Professor of Legal Studies at the University of Central Florida

The dust has settled from yet another constitutional battle
involving the war over affirmative action in America. The United States Supreme Court rendered the
latest of a long line of decisions spanning over three decades on Monday, June
24, 2013, again placing restrictions (but not outright eliminating) the
practice of affirmative action in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Proponents of affirmative action can take
solace in the fact that the concept of affirmative action still survives—at
least until the next major challenge. In
ruling in Fisher, the Court declined
to overturn any of its landmark cases of affirmative action—like Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 and Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke in 1978—and continued to allow universities to use race in admissions
decisions so long as no other “workable race-neutral alternatives would produce
the educational benefits of diversity.”

The Supreme Court in Fisher,
by a 7-1 ruling, avoided the most extreme path of entirely dismantling
affirmative action, and instead opting for a “middle of the road” approach,
which reversed the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which had upheld the
University of Texas affirmative action admission’s plan as constitutional) as
not upholding the rigorous level of judicial review needed in race
classification cases as the Supreme Court has previously mandated and required
to be employed by courts reviewing these cases (as the Court said in Bakke in 1978 and Grutter in 2003), and remanding the case back to the lower courts
for further review.

Thus, while the Court reversed the lower federal court's
decision as not meeting its exacting standards under “strict scrutiny,” the
majority did however again decline to strike down the general practice of
affirmative action as per se unconstitutional and refused to characterize the
practice as no longer being needed in society. Indeed, going into the Fisher
case, proponents of affirmative action were acutely aware that it was possible
that a majority on the Court could have dismantled affirmative action outright,
pronounced the complete prohibition on the use of race or ethnicity in
admissions decisions (or related governmental actions), and declared America’s
experiment with remedial race-conscious preferences to be at an end and no
longer necessary in modern society.

There was nothing overly revolutionary or radical in today’s
ruling, and the Court seems to reaffirm that diversity is a compelling
governmental interest and that Bakke and Grutter decisions are
still good law (despite Justice Scalia and Justices Thomas’ concurring opinions
to the contrary). This alone should give some comfort to supporters of
affirmative action—at least in the short term. Given that the Court has
basically used the Fisher ruling to
reaffirm its rules set out in Grutter—and specifically that “strict
scrutiny” needs to be truly meaningful scrutiny, and not (as the Court says)
“strict in theory and feeble in fact,” the standard for review in future cases
will certainly need to be more exacting, and states will need to show that “no
workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of
diversity.” While this is a more
exacting standard of review moving forward, the Court clearly did not decide
that UT’s program in using race was unconstitutional. The decision also references and upholds the
standards set forth in Bakke & Grutter—so Bakke and Grutter are
still good law, and diversity in higher education still can be considered a
permissible compelling governmental interest. The Court signaled that race based affirmative action plans can still be
considered constitutional if implemented properly (and if no workable race
neutral alternatives are available).

Thus, the ruling in Fisher
was a narrow one, saving the broader battle over affirmative action (and a
possible final end point) for another day. However, while holding that affirmative action survives, the Supreme
Court made clear that reviewing courts have the obligation to make their own
independent judgments about whether the university’s critical mass
determination is a valid one. That is,
strict scrutiny requires real and meaningful searching inquiries on the part of
the court; not deference to the institution at issue. Further, as diversity increases on campus, it
should be harder for institutions to consider race and use affirmative action
at all.

Thus, through the settling haze, the practice of affirmative
action still stands, alive, but battered. The practice has withstood the Court’s restrictions and caveats in such
cases as the Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke in 1978, Adarand
v. Pena in 1995, Gratz v. Bollinger
in 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003,
and now Fisher v. University of Texas at
Austin in 2013. It is battered,
bruised and wobbling—like a punch happy pugilist who is recoiling from one too
many uppercuts to the jaw; but yet, still it stands. Weaker, more tempered, but still in the fight. While judicial concepts like “strict
scrutiny” have been further defined and the level of review has been increased,
proponents of affirmative action can take solace in the fact that the concept
of affirmative action still survives—at least until the next major challenge.

One final note: The next major challenge may not be too far
off in the distance. The Supreme Court
has already granted review of the next affirmative action case in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative
Action by Any Means Necessary. The
case will be argued at the Supreme Court in the Fall 2013 term. This case deals with the propriety and fate
of state law bans on the practice of affirmative action. This case deals with the constitutionality of
Michigan Proposal 2, which amended the Michigan
state constitution to prohibit (as a matter of state law) public institutions
within the state from utilizing racial-preference in admissions, employment,
and contracting. In the petition to the
Supreme Court requesting review, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette
stressed that he was not asking the Court to constitutionally dismantle
affirmative action itself (as was a possibility leading up to the Fisher ruling), but rather whether state
governments can decide to do so on their own. Thus, according to Michigan Attorney General Schuette, “this case
presents the different issue whether a state has the right to accept this
Court’s invitation in Grutter to
bring an end to all race-based preferences.” This “invitation” is clearly a reference to Justice O’Connor’s language
in Grutter that affirmative action
should not be a permanent program and should have a logical end point, and that
end point should be within the next quarter century from the Grutter decision (i.e., by 2028). The stage is already set for this next battle
over affirmative action. Stay tuned in
the Fall.

. . .

James A. Beckman (J.D., Ohio State,
LL.M. Georgetown University) is Associate Professor of Legal Studies at the
University of Central Florida, where he also serves as the inaugural chair of
the Department of Legal Studies. He is the author of Comparative Legal
Approaches to Homeland Security and Anti-terrorism (2007) and Affirmative
Action Now: A Guide for Students, Families, and Counselors (2006); he is
also the General Editor of Affirmative Action: An Encyclopedia (2004).
Before his entrance into academia in 2000, he served as an attorney-advisor for
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) at its headquarters in
Washington, DC. Among other awards, he was the recipient of the United States
Department of Defense Meritorious Service Medal for his legal work as an active
duty judge advocate from 1994–1998, and the Department of Justice Meritorious
Service Award (1999) for legal work on behalf of the Department of Justice and
ATF.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Since 9/11, the United
States has engaged in an unprecedented amount
of spying within the American homeland. An enemy who recognizes no borders,
recruits individuals and small groups, and is ruthless in its desire to kill
civilians has prompted the effort. We have engaged our spy community, our
military, and our law enforcement community to stop these attacks. The record
is now up for review.

In the 12 years since the attack on
the WorldTradeCenter towers and the Pentagon, we have
spent nearly half a trillion dollars on homeland security alone. The Federal
government has established deep information and law enforcement relationships
with the 17,600 state, local and tribal law authorities. It has reached out in
unprecedented ways to the business and public for information. It has intruded
into our personal lives every time we travel, every time we remove our shoes in
an airport or get wanded entering a public
building.

Authorities say some 50 terrorist
plots have been stopped. But, the Boston Bombings this year made Americans
uneasy over the effectiveness of what is being done to stop terrorism. The
exposure of the super-secret, extensive, and legally approved effort by the
National Security Agency (NSA) to take in and mine unprecedented volumes of
information from innumerable private and public sources has stunned the country
and forced the questions: are we doing too much and how much should we, the
public, need to know about it?

Contained in the DNA of America’s
citizens is their concern over big government. We neither like nor trust it. The U.S. Constitution, the very essence of our political identity, splits the
power between three separate, co-equal branches of Federal government.
Additionally, it allows for state’s rights and specifically lays out individual
freedom in the Bill of Rights.

So the time has come to debate our
actions publicly– whither America in its war on terror within America. The challenge the U.S.
Government will have making its case lie in the secret methods it has used to
build up our defenses. Government officials argue for not tipping our hand to
the terrorists—the traditional argument of sources and methods. And, unlike
other times in our history such as the anti-communist hunts of the1950s and 1960s, our
government has gone through extraordinary measures to make sure its actions were
legal and reviewed.

In the past few weeks, prompted by
an unlikely so-called whistleblower from NSA, the average American has been
exposed to the issue of FISA courts, and the Patriot Act, and Presidential
Executive Orders designed to check and double check surveillance programs. The
problem lies not in the court of law, but in the court of public
opinion.

Americans are a tolerant people if
things are explained to them; if they are vetted into the process and reasoning
behind our Government protection. That public “light” has been not been
shined. The public “security” boards set up under law years ago to provide this
insight and outside government protection are only now being filled and put into
action.

It is up to the U.S. Government to
make its case for spying in America to its citizens. It is up to
its citizens to determine how much they want or are willing to tolerate. That
is what America’s Constitution calls for and what should be
done.

Ronald A. Marks is senior fellow at George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute, Washington, DC, and a former CIA senior official. Marks has written about intelligence and homeland security issues for the last ten years.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Each year more than half a million children across the country participate in the National History Day Contest. Students are challenged to choose a historical topic related to the annual theme, and then conduct primary and secondary research. They are then asked to present this research in a creative way via performance, exhibit, documentary or website.This year student Bennett Wallace's creative website on Valley Forge has been selected from his state to compete at the national level. Bennett used ABC-CLIO Solutions as his primary source of information in creating his website. We took a moment to ask Bennett about this project and how ABC-CLIO Solutions helped him create his winning website.

Bennett Wallace (BW): I
chose Valley Forge as a topic because I had visited the Valley Forge National
Park when I was 11 and learned so many interesting things there about how Valley
Forge was a turning point in the war. I felt like it would fit the topic
perfectly. AC: How did ABC-CLIO resources help your research for this
project? BW: ABC-CLIO
resources helped me so much on this project because it was quick and easy to
find reliable sources from their database and they even have the MLA citation at
the bottom of each source. ABC-CLIO made it easy to cite sources for my
annotated bibliography.

AC:What challenges did you face during the course of this
project? How did you overcome these challenges?BW: The
challenges I had during this project were trying to keep under the word limit. There is quite a lot of information on Valley Forge and I wish I could have
added more. Another problem I faced was making the annotated bibliography. I
used so many sources that it was hard to cite them all. I overcame these
problems by getting rid of some pages on my website and also by using sites like
EasyBib and ABC-CLIO that made making my bibliography easier. AC: What surprised you the most about your subject during the
course of your research?BW: The
thing that surprised me most about my subject is that Valley Forge was a turning
point not only in the Revolutionary War but also in George Washington's life and
really our country's history. Also, what surprised me were the conditions at
Valley Forge and how harsh the winter was.

...

We also asked Bennet's teacher, Lindsey
Clewell, for her perspective on the ABC-CLIO and the project:

AC: What
made you decide to have your students participate in the contest?

Lindsey Clewell (LC): I
heard about National History Day from the coordinator of Social Studies for
Washoe County, Sue Davis. I thought that this sounded like an amazing
opportunity for students to learn lifelong skills while researching something
they are interested in.

AC: What
did you find most useful about ABC-CLIO Solutions for your students while
working on this project?

LC: ABC-CLIO offers students reliable
information. In today’s world students have the tedious task of sorting through
information to find out what
iscorrect and reliable. ABC-CLIO offers
a resource that students can go to and know that the information they are
reading about is accurate.

AC: What
challenges did you face during the course of this project? How did you overcome
these challenges?

LC: I feel the biggest challenge of this project was
teaching the students what is a reliable resource and what is not. They are
used to going to Google and typing in a search term and believing everything
they read is reliable. To get them digging a bit deeper into the resource and
asking the questions, “Where did this source come from?” and “How do I know if this
is reliable?”, was a task that is important and something that we spend a lot of
time on. I also made sure to give my students websites that are reliable and
offer many primary and secondary resources. This is a skill that my students
will need to know throughout their lives and is one that is worth spending extra time to
teach.

AC: How
does ABC-CLIO Solutions compare to other research tools you've used in the
classroom?

LC: ABC-CLIO is easy to navigate for students and this is why
my students tended to gravitate to the source. Their generation is used to
getting answers
fast and ABC-CLIO offered great answers in a timely manner. My students found
multiple resources relating to their topic in one place and they really
enjoyed this online resource as a primary source that they used.

...

We asked Christine Hull, Director of Social Studies and Content Literacy Programs at the Nevada Department of Education, to give her feedback on how ABC-CLIO Solutions plays a role at the state level:

AC: What made you decide to have NV schools participate in the contest?

Christine Hull (CH): When I took the position I am in currently I inherited the role of History Day Coordinator for the State of Nevada. I encourage schools to participate in this contest because the process to prepare their projects aligns with Common Core as well as gives the teachers an authentic learning and assessment opportunity in their classrooms. I really believe the process is the most important part of the entire contest. The Director of National History Day, Cathy Gorn always says, History Day is every day! I truly believe that and the skills that students learn through this process truly are preparing them for their next step in education.

AC: What challenges did you face during the course of this project? How did you overcome these challenges?

CH: Our state is so diverse in geography and population. We are unable to have one state contest like every other state so the first time our entire delegation meets is in Maryland. We also run into problems reaching our districts in the eastern part of the state and something that I would really like to focus on in the future.

AC: How has ABC-CLIO Solutions helped you accomplish your overall goals for the social studies programs in NV schools?

CH: Having the ABC-CLIO Solutions available to every K-12 student in the entire state makes it so great for me to encourage teachers to use this as their starting point for research. Knowing that they can all access the same articles and resources I know that if I show an example during a webinar or face to face training that everyone has access to a trusted source of information.

AC: How has ABC-CLIO Solutions helped NV teachers to implement the Common Core State Standards?

CH: Our teachers are loving the ability to search by not only content standards but also by CCSS. Using the primary sources and articles available in ABC-CLIO Solutions gives our teachers the ability to have an updated textbook of sorts that is aligned to the types of literacy activities they are implementing in their classrooms.